Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Radhey Shyam Kansara vs Lrs Of Amar Dutt & Ors on 1 October, 2013
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012
Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt
&
S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012
Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
1. S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012
Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt
2. S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012
Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt
Date of Order : 1st October, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr M.C.Bhoot, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr Arpit Bhoot & Mr Jitendra Chopra for petitioner
Mr Rajesh Joshi ]
Mr H.R.Soni ] for the respondents
BY THE COURT:
Both these writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners against the judgments dated 17.12.2011 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal' hereinafter) in Appeal Nos.37/2008 and 38/2008 and judgments dated 08.02.2008 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short 'the Rent Tribunal' hereinafter) in Civil Original Rent Petition Nos. 383/2004 and 384/2004.
S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 2 The facts involved in both the writ petitions are identical to each other and, therefore, both these writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
Facts of the case, in succinct, are that late Amar Dutt filed applications under section 9
(i) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001' hereinafter) seeking eviction of the petitioners from the premises/shop situated in Katla Bazar, Jodhpur on the ground of bonafide necessity of himself as well as of his son.
Applicant-Amar Dutt claimed in the eviction petitions that after his retirement from the post of Audit Supervisor in Government, he wishes to settle in Jodhpur and do the audit work in the firm of his son, who is a Chartered Accountant, having an office in Jaipur and keeps on visiting Jodhpur for doing audit work of various business establishment and wants to open his office branch at Jodhpur for expanding work, and for that purpose, he has necessity of disputed shops for establishing his office. The S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 3 eviction petitions preferred by Amar Dutt was contested by the petitioners by filing written statements while denying the claim of Amar Dutt. It was contended that the claim of Amar Dutt is not bonafide and genuine, and it was also contended that the applicant is having an alternate accommodation in the same vicinity and his son can establish his office in the said accommodation.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal formulated two questions for adjudication, which are as follows:
"1. Whether the plaintiff and his son have reasonable and bonafide necessity of the disputed premises for setting up office?
2. Relief?"
After appreciating the evidence produced on behalf of the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal vide judgments dated 08.02.2008, allowed the eviction petitions of Amar Dutt and directed the petitioners to evict the disputed premises.
S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 4 Amar Dutt expired just after six days of the judgments dated 08.02.2008 and the petitioners preferred appeals before the Appellate Tribunal impleading the legal representatives of late Amar Dutt as respondents before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeals vide judgment dated 17.12.2011 and confirmed the judgments and certificate of eviction dated 08.02.2008.
Being aggrieved with the impugned judgments dated 17.12.2011 and 08.02.2008, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that after the death of Amar Dutt, the necessity of late Amar Dutt for establishing the office has ceased to subsist/exist. However, the learned Appellate Tribunal has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners in an illegal and arbitrary manner and, therefore, the S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 5 impugned judgments passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal are liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground of non-application of mind. After pointing out some averments of the eviction petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that late Amar Dutt claimed eviction of the petitioners from the property in question solely on the ground that he wanted to settle in Jodhpur to do the audit works, however, after the death of Amar Dutt, the necessity claimed in the eviction petition has come to an end and, therefore, the learned Appellate Tribunal should have allowed the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioners and should have set aside the judgments and certificates of eviction passed by the learned Rent Tribunal.
In the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that it is settled law that in eviction petition, the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord is to be considered on the reality of the situation so that protection afforded to a tenant is not rendered illusionary, however, in the S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 6 present case, the plaintiff's son has failed to produce any plausible evidence, which could establish that he has bonafide necessity of the suit premises for establishing an office of his firm. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, the learned Appellate Tribunal as well as the Rent Tribunal have illegally ordered for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of bonafide necessity of son of the applicant Amar Dutt.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that late Amar Dutt concealed the facts about the existence of the alternate accommodation in the eviction petition and on this ground alone, the eviction petition preferred by late Amar Dutt was liable to be rejected. It is also argued that late Amar Dutt filed eviction petitions solely on the basis of his bonafide necessity, however, after his death, his son has not amended the eviction petitions incorporating necessary pleadings regarding his bonafide necessity in respect of the suit premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the above aspects S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 7 of the matter and has illegally held that the disputed premises is required by the son of late Amar Dutt for establishing his office at Jodhpur without there being any pleading to this effect and, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal is without jurisdiction.
In support of above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court rendered in M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors., (1981) 3 SCC 36; Rakesh Gupta Vs. Ahmed Farooq (79), RLW 1992(2) 398The United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Nirmala & Anr., 2009(2) WLC (Raj.).
Per contra, the learned counsels for the respondents have supported the judgments passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal as well as the Rent Tribunal and argued that late Amar Dutt filed eviction petitions claiming bonafide necessity of himself as well as of his son and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the death of Amar Dutt, the bonafide necessity, as claimed, has S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 8 ceased to subsist or exist is not tenable.
Learned counsel for the respondents Mr Hem Raj Soni has invited attention of the Court to clause 8 of the eviction petition and argued that late Amar Dutt filed the petitions for eviction by invoking section 9(i) of the Act of 2001, while claiming that the premises are required to him for the use or occupation of himself and his family and, therefore, it cannot be said that he filed the eviction petitions solely for claiming his requirement and not of his son. The learned counsels for the respondents have invited the attention of this Court towards several paras of the eviction petitions and argued that in the written statements preferred by the petitioners, in response to the eviction petitions, the petitioners have claimed that neither late Amar Dutt was having bonafide necessity of the suit premises in his life nor his son has any bonafide necessity of the same and, therefore, in view of this fact, it is clear that the petitioners contested the claim of late Amar Dutt with a clear understanding that he has claimed their eviction from the suit premises on the S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 9 ground of bonafide necessity of himself and his son. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that now it is not open for the petitioners to claim that late Amar Dutt filed the eviction petitions, while claiming his own necessity and not of his son.
In support of their contentions, the learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court rendered in Deep Chandra Juneja Vs. Lajwanti Kathuria (Smt) (Dead) through L.Rs., (2008) 8 SCC 497; Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimla Bai Prabhulal & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252; Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co., (2000) 1 SCC 679; Abdul Aziz vs. Late Kanhaiya Lal Through His L/Rs.; 2003WLC (Raj.) UC 642; Jai Singh & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., (2010) 9 SCC 385; Lingala Kondala Rao vs. Vootukuri Narayana Rao, (2003) (1) WLC (SC) Civil 211; Prativa Devi (Smt) vs. T.V.Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353; and Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. vs. Rajendra S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 10 Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record by the petitioners as well as the impugned judgments.
For the purpose of ascertaining the fact whether late Amar Dutt sought eviction of the petitioners from premises in question, claiming bonafide necessity only of his own or of his son also, it is necessary to go through the eviction petitions preferred by him and the written statements preferred by the petitioners in response to the said petition. The relevant portion of the eviction petition is as under:
"8.अध न यम क उपबन ज क अवलमब ललय गय :-
र 9 आई (i) अर त पररसर क अ द र क" सवय$ एव$ पररव र क सदसय& क सदभ व( एव$ य)क+य)+ आवशयकत क आ र पर।
9. स रव तथय:-
1. ......................
2. अर (द र आक/ट सप ) रव ई र क पद स सव न वत 1 वयक+ ह4 और उ क प)त श( ग"प ल दत स(.ए. ह4 "
वतम म9 यपर) म9 " ( दत एण/ कमप (" क म स अप वयवस य पज<टस करत ह4 । उ क" " प)र म9 भ( आक/ट क क म क हत) तर कई मरतब च रट/ एक उनट9 ट क अनय प"फश ल सव ए$ भ( द ( पडत( ह4 अर (द र सवय$ भ( ए. (. ऑफफस स आक/ट सप ) रव ई र S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 11 क पद स सव न वत 1 ह" क क रण बक यद अप प)त श( ग"प ल दत ( क वयवस य स(.ए. क क य म9 आवशयकत अ )स र सव ए$ भ( दत ह4 । अर (द र क प)त श( ग"प ल दत " प)र रDक" क यह $ भ( ओक/ट क ह4 । तर र सर र जय प ठय प)सतक मण/ल " प)र क यह $ भ( आक/ट क ह4 व र सर र जय पर पररवह न गम " प)र म9 भ( आक/ट क ह4 और न कट भववषय म9 उ क ललय अर (द र " पर) क रह वल ह" क क रण " प)र म9 क र"ब रD वयवस य क" फ4ल क अचK अवसर उपलब ह4 इस क रण व " प)र म9 अप आक/ट ट<शस व अनय ररलट/ क र"ब रD वयवस य क ललए सर य( श ख ख"ल क इचK)क ह4 । वह $ भ( उ क क य आक/ट क समय भमणश(ल सव य द क रहत ह4 । और वस भ( उ क" अप कय क लसललसल म9 कमPयट Q र व इ$टर ट क सव ए$ बखब Q ( ल ( पडत( ह4 । इस पक र क इ$टर ट, फ4<स, इतय दद स कहD$ ब4ठ ह)ए भ( अप सर य( श ख क य लय " प)र क"
सच Q र रप स म4 कर सकत ह4 ।
3. अल व अर (द र क" अप ( नम भलQ म " प)र ह"
स उ क यह $ ववशष लग व भ( ह4 अत: अब व अप ( वद 1 अवसर म9 यह $ " प)र म9 हD सटल ह" कर उपर"+ अ स ) र वयवस य " पर) म9 हD करव क इचK)क ह।
ज सस क व अप ( (व क अमल
) य सनYय क ल
अप आप क" अप ( रधच क आक/ट इतय दद क यZ म9
वयसत रहत ह)ए अप नम सर म9 वयत(त कर सक।
इस पक र अर (द र क" पतयर क प स उपलब दक
)
क सवय$ व अप पररव र क सदसय& क ललए उ क
भववषय म9 उन नत और सर नयतव क ललए बहतर
वय प ररक पब$ हत) " पर) म9 शख क य लय
सर प कर हत) सदभ व( य)क+य)+ आवशयकत ह4 ।
4.......................
5. यह ह4 फक स(.ए. फम क आफफस क ललय क फ सर क आवशयकत रहत( ह4 । ज सम9 स(.ए. सवय$ क च4मबर, आगन ) तक" क ललय ररसPश च4मबर, सट फ क S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 12 ललय च र टबल क)स क ललय गह, कमपयQटर क ललय कबब , प)सतक& क ल इबरD क व सत तर फ ईलस व अनय रक / रख क ललय, चपर स( क" बठ क ललय भ( गह च दहय। अर (द र ववव ददत दक ) व इसक पड]स व लD अप ( अनय दक ) ज सम9 र शय म क$स र फकर यद र ह4 द" & क" हD ख लD करव कर ववव ददत दक ) व लD गह म9 स(.ए. क च4मबर, आगन ) तक& क ललय ररसPश च4मबर तर चपर स( क बठ क समध) चत वयवसर कर क इचK)क ह4 । तर इसक स र हD प स व लD क$स र क फकर यव लD दक ) क" ख लD करव कर सट फ क ललय च र टबल क)स क ललय गह, कमपयQटर क ललय कबब , प)सतक" क ल इबरD क व सत तर फ ईलस व अनय रक / रख क ललय समध) चत वयवसर कर क इचK)क ह4 ।
6.....................
7......................
8. यह ह4 फक अ द र क आवशयकत ववव ददत पररसर $ न षक स क आलशक स पQरD हD$ ह" सकग(। <य"फक ज स पक र क वयवस य क ललय इस पररसर क आवशयकत अ द र क" ह4 वस वयवस य अ द र क"
K"ट प क ठ व& म9 कर क ललय ब Yय हD$ फकय सकत । इसक स र हD यह अ द र क इचK पर न भर करत ह4 फक उसक ललय क] स पररसर अध क सव) व क ह4 ओर इसक ललय फकर यद र क" अप ( इचK मक म ललक पर र"प क इ त हD$ दD सकत( ह^। उपर"+ क अल व भ( ववव ददत पररसर क आड"स प ड"स म9 अचK वयव ररक एररय आय ह)आ ह" स यह $ स अ दर क न वस दDक ह" स अ द र क पत ) क वयवस य अचK चलग ऐस अ द र एव$ उसक घर क सदसय& क" ववश स ह4 । ज स क रण भ( यह पररसर अ दर क आवशयकत क अ )रप हD ह4 ।
10.अ क आ र:-
क. ववव ददत पररसर क स रव तथय& क पक श म9 S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 13 अ द र क सवय$ क ललय अरव उसक पररव ररक सदसय& क उतर फक ललय पQण तर सदभ व( य)क+य)+ आवशयकत ह" क आ र पर र " (आई) म9 बत य आ र" पर।
Though the copy of the written statements preferred by the petitioners, in response to the eviction petitions, has not been filed by them, but from the judgment of the Rent Tribunal, the gist of the pleadings of the written statements can be gathered. In para 5 of the judgment, the learned Rent Tribunal has referred to the written statements of the petitioners, which are as under:
"5. अप र इसक व ब यह ददय ह4 फक अ दर म णक च]क स महर& क च]क व लD गलD क अप पत " पर) क अ$फकत फकय ह4 । बफक व सतव म9 यह यप)र म9 शय म गर म9 ब मक म9 अप प)त क स र रहत ह4 । म णक च]क व महर& क च]क क ब(च जसरत सडक पर भ( अमरदत क एक बह)त बड प)शत4 ( मक ह4 "
ल$ब असb स ब$द पड ह4, ज सक उपय"ग हD$ फकय रह ह4 <य&फक इसम9 अमरदत क पररव र क"
क"ई सदसय हD$ रहत ह4 । अप र क" अप
क र"ब र हत) " प)र म9 कवल एक हD ववव ददत
दक
) ह4 , ज सम9 ल$ब समय स वयवस य कर रह ह4
और ग/
) ववल ब रख( ह4 । इस दक
) क अल व
अनय क"ई आय क ररय हD$ ह4 और इसम9
पररव र क सभ( सदसय क यरत ह4 । प र पनcह
स ल पहल सव न वत
1 ह" च)क र और अप प)त
ग"प ल दत क स र यप
) र म9 रहव स प रमभ
S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 14 फकय । उसक प)त वष 1983 म9 स(.ए. क परDक प स कर लD र( और यप)र म9 हD आयकर व अनय ववभ ग& क करद त ओ$ क प4रव( कर ( प रमभ कर दD। उस शय म गर म9 मक ब रख ह4 और ग"प ल दत क प स करद त ओ$ क क फ फ ईल9 ह4, ज सम9 प र सह यत कर रह ह4 । उसक यह कह गलत ह4 फक ऑक/ट क क म क ललय " प)र आकर प"फश ल सव य9 द ( पडत( ह4 । यह भ( गलत ह4 फक उसक प)त " प)र म9 वयवस य फ4ल क इचK)क ह4 । ऑक/ट क य क ललय ऑफफस ख"ल क आवशयकत हD$ ह4, यह क य सरक रD क य लय म9 कर करत ह4, " वष म9 एक-द" ब र ह"त ह4 ।
" पर) म9 ऑक/ट क य कर स अ द र क" ब र
म9 द" दक
) & क" ख लD कर क आवशयकत ह4,
यह कह गलत ह4 । " पर) क मख
) य ब र क
बबलक)ल प स प र क मक ल$ब समय स ख लD
ह4 , ज सम9 कई कमर ह^, ह $ क य लय ख"ल सकत
ह^। इस मक म9 आवशयकत स अध क सर
उपलब ह। " प)र शहर म9 बड( त द द म9 च टb /
एक उनट9 ट क क य लय ह4, ज नह& सवय$ क ब$गल&
य मक म9 ब रख ह^। च टb / एक उनट9 ट क ललय
मख
) य ब र म9 दक
) क आवशयकत हD$ ह"त(।
फकस( भ( च टb / एक उनट9 ट क क य लय मख
) य
ब र म9 हD$ ह4 । च टb / एक उनट9 ट क क य लय
दक
) क ऊपर क म$ज ल म9 ह"त ह^। इसललय
प र क यह कह फक " प)र म9 सर ई सव य9
द क ललय पररसर क आवशयकत ह4, यह बबलक)ल
गलत व बब)न य द ह4 । यह क य लय म णक च]क जसरत मक म9 ख"ल सकत ह4, ह $ द"
म$ज ल मक ख लD पड ह^।"
From the above pleadings, it is clear that late Amar Dutt sought eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises on the ground S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 15 of bonafide necessity of himself as well as of his son for establishing an office of the Chartered Accountant at Jodhpur. The petitioners have responded to the said claim, while claiming that son of late Amar Dutt is not interested in expanding his profession at Jodhpur or he is also having alternate accommodation for opening office of Chartered Accountant, with a clear understanding that late Amar Dutt sought their eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of himself and his son, and not of himself alone.
Apart from that, late Amar Dutt filed eviction petitions by invoking section 9(i) of the Act of 2001.
Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001 provides as under:
"9(i) the premises are required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord for the use or occupation of himself or his family or for the use or occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held."
As per section 9(i) of the Act of 2001, a land lord can claim eviction of any tenant on the ground that rented premises are required S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 16 reasonably and bonafide by the land lord for the use or occupation of himself or his family. In the eviction petition and his statement, late Amar Dutt has categorically took stand that premises in question is required for establishing office of Chartered Accountant Firm of his son. The learned appellate court has observed in para 10 of the judgments dated 17.12.2011 that from the reading of the whole eviction petition, it is clear that Amar Dutt claimed bonafide necessity of himself and his family members and, therefore, it cannot be said that after his death, necessity of rented premises has come to an end.
In such circumstances, this Court does not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that late Amar Dutt filed the claim petition for his necessity only because the same is not in conformity with the pleadings and evidence, averred and adduced by the parties before the Rent Tribunal, hence, the same argument is rejected.
Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 17 as well as of this Court in catena of decisions, such as, Ramkubai (Smt) deceased by Lrs. & Ors. vs. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak & Ors.,(1999) 6 SCC 540; Gaya Prasad vs. Sh. Pradeep Srivastava,(2001) 2 SCC 604; Pratap Rai Tanwani & Anr. vs. Uttam Chand and Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 490 have held that bonafide requirement of the landlord has to be seen on the date of the petition and the subsequent events intervening due to protracted litigation will not be relevant. It was held that the crucial date is the date of petition. Therefore, also, the factum of death of applicant Amar Dutt subsequent to passing of judgment of Rent Tribunal dated 08.02.2008 was not at all relevant and in such circumstances, the learned Appellate Tribunal has not committed any illegality in rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioners.
So far contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the alternate accommodation is concerned, the same is also not tenable because it is always the prerogative of landlord to decide for what S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.2077/2012 Parasmal Dhariwal vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt & S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO.2078/2012 Radhey Shyam Kansara vs. L.Rs. of Amar Dutt 18 purpose, he is required the premises in question and it is not the tenant, who can dictate terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not.
In view of the above observations, no case for interference is made out. Hence, both the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners fail and are hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
[VIJAY BISHNOI],J.
m.asif/-